At Olliers we regularly achieve no further action as a result of our proactive and front footed strategic approach with pre-charge engagement.
A selection of our recent successful case studies can be seen below for sexual offences, rape, indecent images of children, controlling and coercive behaviour, domestic allegations and other criminal offences.
Why choose Olliers?
Medical Student Avoids Criminal Conviction for Blue Badge Misuse – No Further Action
We recently represented Q, a medical student who found himself under criminal investigation by the local council for the alleged misuse of a Blue Badge (disabled persons parking badge).
The issue arose after a parking inspector spotted a Blue Badge displayed in Q’s vehicle, which was later found to have belonged to his late grandfather. He expected to receive a parking fine, instead Q was notified that he was being investigated for a criminal offence – misuse of a disabled person’s badge, a matter the council takes very seriously.
When Q came to us he was understandably distressed. He explained that the badge had belonged to his grandfather, who had recently passed away. During this time Q was navigating personal grief, medical exams and a challenging family dispute. He admitted the mistake and was deeply remorseful, especially as a criminal conviction could derail his future career in healthcare.
We drafted comprehensive representations outlining:
- The full context and Q’s account
- Significant mitigating factors, including his personal circumstances
- Expressions of genuine remorse
- Strong character references from respected members of his community
We argued that while an offence had occurred, a prosecution was not in the public interest given the unique circumstances and Q’s otherwise exemplary character. After reviewing the submission, the council agreed. They confirmed that they would not proceed with a prosecution and would take no further action.
This was an excellent outcome for Q who avoided a criminal record and can now continue pursuing his career in medicine without this mistake defining his future.
Pre-Charge Engagement Case Study – Controlling and coercive behavior, rape, disclosing private photographs and threatening to disclose private photographs.
Olliers were instructed by the family of KL who had been arrested and interviewed by the Police with regards allegations of controlling and coercive behavior, rape, disclosing private photographs and threatening to disclose private photographs.
The allegations arose following the breakup of his relationship with his girlfriend. Prior to the breakup she had been living with him in an annex at the family home. She alleged that during the relationship he had been checking her phone, preventing her seeing friends, had been aggressive towards her and forcefully demanded sex from her. The complainant’s account was supported by her mother and friend.
KL had been represented by the duty solicitor in the first interview and had provided a brief pre-prepared statement denying the allegations. Olliers set about undertaking pre-charge engagement with the Police as the investigation was ongoing.
Olliers obtained significant evidence in the case, that was forwarded to the Police which included:
- Evidence from a witness who confirmed that they had seen the complainant assault a third party at the start of the relationship.
- Evidence from family members that undermined the suggestion that KL had been aggressive towards the complainant while living at the family home.
- Video evidence where the complainant was laughing at the suggestion that KL had been controlling towards her.
- Evidence that the complainants mother had damaged KL’s car while they were dating.
- Material suggesting that the complainant’s friend wasn’t a credible witness.
- Character references for KL.
- Witness statements that undermined the allegation that he had shared images as alleged.
The case was subsequently passed to the CPS and pre-charge representations were made to them. As a consequence of Olliers work, KL was only prosecuted for one allegation of threatening to disclose private photographs based on a brief conversation between him and the complainant recovered from TikTok. This was a huge relief to KL and his family.
Pre-Charge Engagement Case Study – Voyeurism and Indecent Images of Children – No Further Action
HSE v AR (2025) – No Further Action by Health and Safety Executive (HSE) following investigation
Olliers were instructed by a London based property development company under investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) in relation to an incident at one of their sites last December, where a sub-contractor sadly passed away following a fall from height.
The company had initially responded to a number of HSE requests for information in the months following the incident. before instructing Olliers when the HSE sought to pursue further lines of enquiry and raised specific questions about the history of the project, including previous visits by the HSE which the directors had been unaware of.
The questions were potentially very significant in terms of how the matter may proceed as it became apparent that the HSE had issued several Prohibition Notices and Improvement Notices to the Principal Contractor engaged by our client to undertake the project.
We assisted the company in responding to the HSE questions, collating all relevant information in relation to the project from the tendering stage through to delivery. We also drafted submissions setting out the company’s commitment to health and safety compliance, its impeccable health and safety record but moreover we highlighted the lack of evidence to substantiate any suggestion that the death occurred as a result of any failure by the company.
Having reviewed the material and submissions provided, the HSE closed their investigation into the company. This was a very welcome outcome for the company and its directors.
R v CQ (2025) – Sexual Assault and Controlling and Coercive Behaviour – No Further Action
CQ instructed Toby Wilbraham from Olliers to represent him at a pre-charge stage after he was arrested and interview in relation to allegations of sexual assault and controlling and coercive behaviour against his ex-girlfriend who was a serving police officer.
Toby Wilbraham took instructions from CQ who stated that he had been in a relationship with the complainant, but this deteriorated over time after they bought a property together. He stated that the property needed a lot of work and himself and his family did most of the renovating of the house. He stated that the complainant did little to help out and would not clear up after herself leaving discarded food containers around which he cleared up. He ended the relationship and asked her to move out. She left following an argument and subsequently made a complaint to the police.
Toby Wilbraham took a number of witness statement from family members that corroborated his account. He also obtained a number of character witnesses that undermined the allegations against him. Other material was also obtained that helped his case including an email that the complainant sent to him while he was still on bail for the allegations.
A selection of this material was sent to the police as part of the pre-charge-engagement process. After reviewing the material the police felt that it significantly undermined the allegations and decided to offer no further evidence against him, bringing the matter to a quick end.
R v X (2025) – Indecent Images of Children – No Further Action
We were instructed by the parents of a 16-year-old male who had been arrested for possessing and distributing indecent images of children. Our client, X, was diagnosed neurodivergent and extremely vulnerable.
The CPS charging decision is based on the evidential test and the public interest test as laid out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors.
This was a challenging case in that the strength of the evidence against X was significant as the police had captured his online activity and traced it to his phone.
X had co-operated in police interview by answering questions put to him and providing access to his devices; however, his period of detention raised issues for the defence in the treatment of a 16-year-old vulnerable boy with learning difficulties.
Criticisms of the lack of available safeguards to protect him during the custodial period were of significant concern to his parents and to be addressed in the defence pre-charge representations.
On the basis that a review of the data had been completed at the time of drafting the pre-charge engagement we submitted early representations focusing on the public interest test.
We made representations to the officer in the case that it was not in the public interest to charge X and that other disposals were more appropriate.
We recommended that X be dealt with by way of undertaking educational courses to safeguard him and others from risky online behaviour. As a young person of good character who had not hindered the police investigation and was fully engaged to comply with the recommended educational courses, we argued that the Criminal Justice System would not be served by prosecuting a young, vulnerable person such as X.
The officer in the case agreed with our representations and referred the case to the police Youth Justice Panel for further ratification by the CPS.
The principle aim of the Youth Justice System for all agencies involved is to prevent offending. In educating X at this transitional and difficult time in his life, as opposed to charging him and thereby introducing him to the Criminal Justice System; it was hoped that future offending would be completely curtailed. This route was recognised as the best one for X and all involved agreed.
The case was decided accordingly and given a formal outcome of No Further Action by the police.
R v Y (2025) – Controlling and Coercive Behaviour – No Further Action
Mr Y was arrested at Heathrow airport after coming back from holiday. He was questioned in relation to a relationship he had with Miss G that had ended several years before.
It was alleged that Mr Y was controlling and coercive during that relationship. In particular it was alleged he had exercised control over her by pretending to be an imaginary third party who contacted Miss G and relayed sexual fantasies to her. It was further alleged that he had been controlling towards her by limiting her contact with friends and family.
Mr Y denied being controlling towards her by separating her from her family and friends. We were able to provide to the police material that suggested that the relationship was loving throughout including cards that she had written to him with loving messages, a dissertation she had written for University that included a warm tribute to him, pictures of the couple together during their relationship and other material that suggested there were no issues between them.
After reviewing the material we sent them as part of pre-charge-engagement the police ultimately offered no further evidence against him and the matter was closed allowing him to move forward with his life.
R v CD (2025) Fraud by use of position – No Further Action
C was investigated in respect of an allegation of committing fraud by abuse of position/theft. C was originally employed as an accounts administrator in 2010. Having been with the firm for several years and the officer manager retiring, C was then promoted to take over the office manager role and agreed a salary increase and pension contributions in line with the other manager working at the company. This role still involved oversight of payroll subject to the company’s accountant having final oversight.
C was dismissed in 2022 following discussions regarding home/office working and a request by the employer to work more than the contracted hours. This led to employment tribunal proceedings commencing while the company made a police report, alleging fraud by C.
The nature of the allegation was that C had significantly overpaid herself an inflated salary which had not been approved by the directors. This was strenuously denied by our client. The company suggested that her pay was not in keeping with the pay of her initial contact, signed in 2010, relying on the lack of any new contract being materialised.
The defence were able to obtain documentation from the company which tracked their initial investigation into the matter. The company suggested that C had never been promoted when in fact, their own internal reports were frequently headlined with the phrase “office manager” in respect of C.
Initial pre-charge representations were made to the police highlighting key discrepancies in the claim made by the company which clearly suggested that the company knew and authorised C’s promotion and full awareness of her inclusion into the managerial pension programme. We also suggested further key lines of enquiry to the police that would assist with the defence assertion that there would be no case to answer.
Following further review of the case by the police, the decision was made to take no further action in respect of any potential criminal charge.
R v ZA (2025) Conspiracy to Rape – No Further Action
Our client was arrested and interviewed following a police investigation that brought his contact details to light from another suspect.
The client contacted us after his arrest and interview. We were instructed to engage with the police at the pre-charge stage of the investigation with a view to diversion from charge due to lack of supporting evidence of the allegation.
On the face of it this was quite a terrifying allegation but once the police pre-interview disclosure was considered along with the duty solicitor notes of the police interview questions, we were able to establish that the evidence was not strong.
Upon arrest the client’s personal mobile phone was seized on the basis of what amounted to an inappropriate sexually explicit conversation with Suspect 1.
To prepare the case involved detailed instructions from the client, consideration of the No Comment Interview and advice given at the police station. Legal research of the caselaw around the offence of conspiracy was undertaken.
The conversation between Suspect 1 and our client did not meet the criteria to make out the offence. We were confident that without further evidence the client would not be charged, and the offence was vehemently denied.
The officer agreed after receiving the examination outcome of the client’s phone that there would be no further evidence in this case and there was insufficient to bring charges.
An early decision was taken to No Further Action the case.
R v YA – Rape and Controlling and Coercive Behavior – No Further Action
YA and the complainant were both in Sixth Form College when they began a relationship, their first sexual relationship. Both were from strict religious backgrounds, so they kept the relationship a secret from their parents. This meant that they would meet to engage in sexual activity at various outdoor locations or Y would visit the complainant at her home when her parents were out of the address.
Eventually the complainant’s parents discovered the relationship. Both sets of parents agreed that they were only permitted them to continue to meet as ‘friends’ for the purpose of study & revision. This resulted in further secret meetings at supermarkets, parks and hotels. Following a pregnancy termination and struggles with mental health, the complainant disclosed to a counsellor that she had been forced by YA to engage in sexual intercourse without consent at various locations and that he had been controlled and coerced her.
We were instructed to engage in pre-charge engagement with the police. This involved examining a significant amount of material YA had gathered including messages; love letters; photographs; videos, evidence that assisted in demonstrating that the complainant had been involved in orchestrating the sexual encounters; supported that she had consented to the sexual activity and that she was not controlled or coerced.
Following service of Pre-Charge Engagement Representations and defence disclosure the police made a decision to take no further action, without seeking CPS advice.
YA and his family were relieved by the outcome and YA was able to move forward with his life and start university.
R v BP (2025) Rape – No Further Action
The case involved a report of rape. Our client and the complainant had met for the first time during a night out where both had drunk considerable amounts of alcohol but not with each other.
At the end of the night they walked from a city centre nightclub to the accommodation of the complainant where sexual intercourse took place.
Within two days following the meeting a report of rape was made by the complainant to the police. From the limited disclosure given by the police at that time it seemed that the complainant was alleging that she had been too intoxicated to consent to the sexual activity that took place that night.
The client contacted us after his arrest and interview. We were instructed to engage with the police at the pre-charge stage of the investigation with a view to diversion from charge due to lack of supporting evidence of the allegation.
In taking a detailed account from our client and requesting CCTV evidence be seized from the nightclub to the route back to the complainant’s apartment, we were able to influence the police enquiries.
Supporting statements from witnesses who saw the complainant with our client that night were also taken and submitted with our representations.
The client’s account was that the complainant was coherent and in full control of her faculties. At no point was she incapable to consent.
The CCTV footage and witness accounts corroborated the client and this investigation was concluded in an extremely short time by the police who made the decision that there would be No Further Action in this case.
R v NS (2025) Possession of an offensive weapon in a public place – No Further action
He was searched by security in a government building and found to be in possession of a spring-loaded friction lock baton. He had been fully open and honest with both the security officers and the police. He expressed his shock at the fact that the baton was illegal and agreed to attend an interview under caution.
NS instructed us for the interview and pre-charge engagement. We took a detailed account from him which included background information. We did various work which included obtaining exhibits and character references.
He provided a prepared statement in interview admitting to the offence and offering his wholehearted apologies for the situation. The police stated he would likely be offered a caution for this matter.
We made pre-charge representations to the police decision maker for them to consider whether it was appropriate for them to take no further action on public interest grounds.
The police agreed and took no further action against NS.
This was a great relief to NS who was a man of good character and would have suffered reputational damage even if he had been cautioned.
Contact our criminal pre-charge investigations solicitors
If you would like to discuss how we can proactively assist you in relation to your case at a pre-charge stage, contact us by telephone on 0161 834 1515, by email to info@olliers.com or complete the form below and we will contact you.
Pre-charge engagement refers to any voluntary engagement between parties to an criminal investigation (usually the defendant, the police and the prosecution) after the first police interview under caution.
Pre-charge engagement refers to any voluntary engagement between parties to an investigation. It is a voluntary process and can be terminated at any time.
It can be on an informal basis or a formal basis.
It may involve:
- Giving a suspect an opportunity to comment on further lines of enquiry
- Establishing whether a suspect can identify other lines of enquiry
- Asking a suspect whether they can provide access to digital material
- Discussing ways to overcome barriers to obtaining evidence
- Agreeing key word searches of digital material
- Obtaining a suspect’s consent to access medical records
- A suspect identifying and providing details of potential witnesses
- Clarifying whether expert or forensic evidence is agreed
- The above list is not exhaustive.
‘Pre charge engagement’ describes the relationship between defence lawyers and investigators.
Its provisions are contained at Annex B of ‘The Attorney General’s Guidelines on Disclosure 2024’ which came into force on 29th May 2024.
This replaced the previous ‘Attorney General’s Guidelines on Disclosure 2020’ which came in on 31 December 2020.
The pre-charge engagement team at Olliers is known for its proactive approach in criminal investigations. We place great emphasis on bringing cases to an early conclusion without a client having to face the stress, trauma and cost of proceeding to court.
Throughout an investigation we maintain contact with investigating officers, establishing the full extent of the case against our client.
We simultaneously undertake defence enquiries that support our client’s case. This might involve making enquiries with defence witnesses, obtaining CCTV, going through messages and emails between the defendant and the complainant, obtaining third party information and
Our ultimate objective is to make pre-charge representations arguing against prosecution – arguing that there is not a ‘realistic prospect of a conviction’ or that a prosecution is not in the ‘public interest’
When facing the early stages of a criminal investigation, choosing the right legal representation is crucial. Pre-charge engagement is a critical phase where the decisions made can significantly impact the course and outcome of a case. Olliers Solicitors is a leading criminal defence law firm in criminal defence, renowned for its specialism in pre-charge representation.
Olliers Solicitors has a lengthy history of successfully representing clients at the pre-stage. Our experienced team has repeatedly demonstrated their ability to prevent charges from being brought, saving clients from the stress and consequences of a full-blown criminal trial.
At Olliers, every case is treated uniquely. Our expert lawyers take the time to understand the specific details and nuances of your situation, creating a personalised strategy that maximises the chances of a positive outcome. This tailored approach ensures that all relevant arguments and evidence are meticulously presented to the police and Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).
Clients are kept informed at every stage of the process, with complex legal jargon explained in understandable terms. This transparency helps clients feel supported and empowered throughout their legal journey.
At Olliers we believe in the power of early intervention. By engaging with the police and CPS at the earliest possible stage, we aim to influence the decision-making process before formal charges are brought. This proactive approach can often lead to cases being dropped or diverted away from prosecution. The team conducts a thorough review of all available evidence, identifying weaknesses in the prosecution’s case and gathering additional evidence where necessary. This meticulous preparation ensures that our representations to the CPS are robust and persuasive.
We also understanding that legal issues come with personal and emotional challenges. We offer not only legal advice but also guidance on managing the personal impact of a criminal investigation.
Our impressive success rate in pre-charge engagements speaks for itself. Many clients have benefited from Olliers’ expert intervention, resulting in charges being avoided altogether. Testimonials and case studies available on our website highlight the positive outcomes achieved for numerous clients.
If you or a loved one are under investigation, don’t wait until charges are brought. Contact Olliers Solicitors to benefit from our expertise and dedication in achieving the best possible outcome in your case.
At Olliers we have significant experience of dealing with cases at the pre-charge investigative stage.
If you require advice in relation to a pre-charge criminal investigation, please contact our new enquiry team either by email to info@olliers.com, or by telephone on 020 3883 6790 (London) or 0161 834 1515 (Manchester) or by completing the form below and our new enquiry team will contact you.
Our experienced new enquiry team can discuss how instruction of Olliers would benefit your case, explain our strategy and proactive approach, assist with which of our specialist team would be most appropriate and discuss our fees and pricing structures.
Complete the form below and we will contact you
Manchester
Head Office
- 0161 8341515
- info@olliers.com
- Fourth Floor, 44 Peter Street, Manchester, M2 5GP
